Re: community PM requirements/issues and PowerOP [Was: Re: So, what's the status on the recent patches here?]

["Eugeny S. Mints" <eugeny.mints@gmail.com>]

Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
> 
>> operating points it is possible to implement the "cpufreq frequency 
>> selection logic" in user space and having such functionality in the kernel 
>> just violates the main rule of having everything possible outside of the 
>> kernel.
> 
> You got the rules wrong. "Keep the code out of kernel" is important
> rule, but probably not the main one.
funny. not to mention that it was not the only argument I presented but please 
tell us explicitly what's your reason to blow out kernel footprint by the code 
which can be handled outside the kernel. I'd prefer to see technical reasons a 
kind of latencies, etc but not  the constant refrain "don't touch cpufreq 
interface". Especially considering that proposed improvements _do_ _not_ 
_change_ the interface.

And just FYI kernel footprint was stated as one of main current issues at least 
on the last OLS.
> 
>> Paval, plz NOTE, that  you don't have lkml in CC on this thread and I 
>> personally feel that you've brought a really terrible confusion to everyone 
>> with your lkml step. I'm wondering whether you are braking "no cross 
>> postings" rule as well.....
> 
> Cc-ing lkml is considered okay.
> 
> Anyway, please do _proper_ submission, 
I already did _proper_ submissions several time on IMO the _proper_ list.
>cc-ing lkml, explaining why it
> is needed so that me and lkml actually know what is going on. 
will do

Eugeny
>Include
> those "elevator pitches".
> 									Pavel
>